ILNews

Opinions March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, et al.
49A02-1002-PL-125
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission to enjoin the commission from issuing new beer dealer’s permits in locations in which the statutory limits on the number of beer dealer’s permits have been met or exceeded. The Commission’s interpretation of 7.1-3 is reasonable and doesn’t violate Title 7.1. The IABR also failed to show its members are likely to suffer irreparable harm if no injunction is issued.

Eddie M. Taylor v. State of Indiana

20A03-1003-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Taylor’s decision to proceed pro se was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and he was not denied the right to counsel, as he was appointed counsel the day before his trial was scheduled to begin.

State of Indiana v. Danny LeFlore (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-698
Criminal. Reverses denial of the state’s motion to use pretrial statements of witnesses who had been excluded. Remands with instructions that the trial court hear the state’s evidence and make a determination as to whether LeFlore’s conduct rendered the witnesses unavailable for cross-examination and thus, whether LeFlore forfeited his right to confrontation.

J.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-JV-791
Juvenile. Affirms restitution order following adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class D felony theft if committed by an adult.

C.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-JV-912
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing acts that would be battery, criminal recklessness, and dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult. Affirms order committing C.H. to the Department of Correction.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.C.; J.C. v. Tippecanoe County DCS (NFP)
79A04-1007-JT-495
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT